Freedomain Radio

I was pondering today on Tom's recent thrust into the public domain via last Saturdays Guardian newspaper and I was struck by some potential ethical dilemmas we could possibly face when dealing with the media in future. A thought occurred to me, that anyone of us could be involved in a far more intense conversation with a reporter regarding our experiences with the philosophy applied here at FDR. Indeed that we could be asked to talk about our personal insights into the application of RTR and UPB even. Of course logic tells us to limit these conversations on philosophy to more broader and metaphorical terms only and to not divulge personal experiences with actual individuals. However, I realised that given a more persistent and inquisitive journalist looking for a more personal angle on our debate, that a little digging around the forums and profiles at FDR and elsewhere, could produce faces to metaphors, as it were.

Ok. I realise that last statement was a contradiction, how could a metaphor be seen as real situation or person? And indeed a reporter would have to be careful that they were not making wild accusations. But lets face it, hearsay was clearly not a problem for Kate hilpern. So the possibility of what was considered an interesting conversation about ridding yourself of corrupt people in your life suddenly generates a full blown story about one of them without any foresight or input from yourself. Through no fault of their own this person could be thrust into the public eye with all manner of repercussions on their personal and professional lives.

Maybe I'm getting way ahead of myself on this and perhaps I feel a bit raw after removing a close friend from my life recently. But I don’t think any of us imagined that this article was ever going to be printed, let alone on the front cover of a newspaper supplement. I would feel mortified if my ex friend was depicted in this manner for public scrutiny. I am less bothered about parents as they bore some responsibility in rearing me. But corrupt friends don’t necessarily come under that category, as the relationship was a voluntary one even if psychologically it may have been less so.

Of course I am not advocating we should never speak to the media, as given the response to the website after this recent article gave a tremendous boost to our credibility as philosophers. Indeed this conversation is vital to the future wellbeing of mankind and its children.

Maybe what I speak of is part of the philosophers burden, but I realised that we are perhaps slowly entering a new phase in our development as a community.

Any thoughts?...

Sorry, I'm not sure that I quite understand the ethical dilemma -- could you be a little more explicit please?

Stefan Molyneux:

Sorry, I'm not sure that I quite understand the ethical dilemma -- could you be a little more explicit please?

Yes, in hindsight I realised that 'ethical' may perhaps have been a wrong choice of words. Apologies if it sounded overly dramatic. I was concerned about how a newspaper story may develop around our personal lives and relationships that we talk of so intimately here on the board (and rightly so) in the future. That we may unbeknownst to ourselves have thrust an individual or persons into a critical light publically. Ethical in the sense that maybe we would bare some responsibility for that individual’s public humiliation.

Of course I understand that we wouldn’t have done this deliberately, as my example explained, it may only require the careful examination of this forum and the web generally to discover the identities of these individuals by the reporter. It was upon realising how Toms personal life had been opened up in quite a graphically personal way for all manner of strangers to question him, whether privately or face to face that made me think.

Does that make sense?..

 One of the reasons for my recent name change is that I didn't want anything with my real name floating around the forums in any way shape or form.

I've said some personal stuff here and I certainly don't want to deal with the media to any extent regarding my posting here.  Its pretty personal stuff which makes his mothers ploy all the more sickening.

I do understand what you mean -- it certainly is true that the technology which enables this kind of community also enables a kind of exposure. I don't know much about dealing with the media, but it just strikes me at the moment that it certainly seems possible to talk to a reporter and demand anonyminity, which would require that all personally identifiable characteristics be stripped from the article. This might be safer than having a family member be the only one talking to a reporter.